Science, the Science Advisor, and Ethics

Dr. John Marburger, the current Presidential Science Advisor, has a little question-and-answer piece over at Newsweek. Nick Anthis has some comments on the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of the article over at The Scientific Activist. On the whole, I agree with Nick, but there is one point that Marburger made that I think deserves a bit more attention.

In the article, when asked about stem cell research, Marburger says:

Objections to embryonic stem-cell research are rooted in ethical principles and the idea of compromising these is repugnant to many U.S. citizens. Science alone cannot resolve ethical dilemmas, but it can clarify the potential benefits of stem-cell research. Based on careful consideration of both scientific information and ethical concerns, the president has, for the first time in history, made it possible for embryonic stem-cell research to be federally funded.

Nick discusses this point, but mostly focuses on the shameless attempt to spin the president's actions:

The last line is my favorite--a textbook example of GOP spin. Stem cells did not even emerge on the national agenda until the end of Clinton's administration, so Bush is basically the first president who has had the opportunity to address the issue head on. He failed miserably, and it's disappointing, to say the least, to see his science advisor letting scientific progress take a backseat to political ideology.

I absolutely agree that the last sentence is nothing more than a shameless attempt to paint the president's actions in the best light possible, but I think that the rest of the statement deserves a bit more attention.

Marburger makes an important - and valid - point. The debate over whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used in research is ethical in nature, not scientific. Scientific research can, by identifying the possible, probable, and likely benefits of such research, inform the ethical debate, but it cannot solve the debate.

Stem cell research is far from the only scientific area where there are currently values-based decisions involved. Decisions regarding the conservation of endangered species, for example, require a decision to be made about whether the right of a particular species to continue to exist should trump the right of a landowner to do what they want with their own property. Embedded in that question is another, more subtle, issue: whether all species are equally deserving of protection. Debates over what to do about global warming require decisions to be made about whether or not the environmental and ecological costs of not taking action should outweigh the economic costs of taking action. Those are only a few examples. There are many more.

I should probably take a minute to make it clear that I personally think that the answers to most of those questions are totally obvious. I suspect that most others feel the same way about the value of saving the diversity of life, and making sure that our children and grandchildren have a planet to live on. That's one of the reasons that it's so important to make sure that politics don't influence the results of scientific research, and that the state of scientific knowledge is fully and accurately presented, without pretending certainty where there is none, and not creating uncertainty where it does not exist.

Unfortunately, that ideal is almost directly opposed by the actions of those currently in power. Their gameplan has consistently been to try to distort the science in an attempt to undercut their opponents' positions - for example, by claiming that carbon dioxide is "life" and not "pollution." It's a shame that Marburger seems incapable of recognizing the massive political interference in the scientific process that has been this administration's strategy since day one.